It cant be called a fact because it is not testable and because there are many decent arguments against it. Gravity can be tested by observable testing. They are not the same thing. And if it is in fact true, then it would still not be a law as it only describes what sometimes happens…not what has to happen. Gravity has to happen, and it happens everytime. Again, not the same thing.
Evolution can also be observed in the lab or in nature. Remember that the definition of evolution-as-fact is “populations change their genetic makeup over time.” This can easily be observed. Every time a bacterium evolves resistance to an antibiotic, the genetic makeup of that population has changed.
Bacteria have built-in mechanisms to deal with contact with harmful substances. “Horizontal gene transfer is the primary reason for bacterial antibiotic resistance.” Human beings cannot exchange genes with each other. Bacteria, even different types, can. And they do not transform into something that is not bacteria after.
Correct. HGT is one of the many observed mechanisms that cause the genetic makeup of a population to change over time. That is, it is one of the observed drivers of evolution.
But we can get genes from viruses. Our genomes show that our ancestors were once infected by many viruses, now inactivated, but whose debris is still present. The modern human population is currently receiving genes from the HIV virus, among others. That is another mechanism of genetic change in a population over time.
Which is also the same for eukaryotes. Eukaryotes do not evolve into anything except different eukaryotes. Now you need to learn how wide a range “eukaryotes” covers. Oh yes, and “bacteria” covers an even wider range of genetic possibilities than “eukaryotes”, even if you don’t include the archaea.
Excellent. Then we can expect to see new vaccines from the creationist labs to immunise us against diseases that haven’t even appeared yet, but are “pre-loaded” into our genomes. We can sequence genomes, so all that pre-loaded stuff must be there to see. Where are the creationist research papers showing it?
Your response in the context of this thread seemed like a refutation of the position, stated eariler by others, that the theory of evolution is consistent with Church teaching. But after reading your explanation, it is clearer that you were only refuting particular extensions of this theory, not the core theory itself.
If that is the variety of evolutionary theory that you dispute, then I would agree with you. Some of these models of the human soul evolving contain hypotheses that are clearly in contradiction with Church teaching. But I think it is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory to consider these theories as anything other than fringe positions taken by some in the scientific field. The mainstream theory of evolution as taught in high school and basic college classes does not go there. It is an overstatement to say that such fringe theories are “the current variety of evolution theories”.
Yes, I would say that those are examples of MICRO evolution. Which is really much different than macro.
You could just as well say that gravity acting on small objects, like apples, is really much different than gravity acting on large objects, like galaxies. The difference only looks qualitative, when in fact it is just quantitative. And before you bring up “irreducible complexity”, I would add that our inability to map out the specific path taken by evolution to bridge these seemingly unbridgeable gaps is not proof that no such path is possible.Yes, I would say that those are examples of MICRO evolution. Which is really much different than macro.
Gravity to me is a fact. Or if it is not, then there are no facts. And we can really have no starting points with which to reason with,
Peace unto you
Im not interested in irreducible complexity. I’m not even convinced that evolution didn’t happen. Gaps are a little different.
OK, I see the distinction you are drawing. So rather than focus on gravity, we could focus on nuclear decay. This is a theory based on a predicable phenomenon that happens very reliably to atoms of unstable elements, like uranium. Yet the incidence of a single uranium atom decaying is subject to probability. It is totally random. It is only when large numbers of atoms are considered as a group that we can make very reliable predictions about how much nuclear decay will occur. It is possible, although extremely unlikely, for a chunk of uranium composed of billions upon billions of atoms to go 10 seconds without a single decay. Does this mean the theory of nuclear decay is flawed? Not at all. The theory of nuclear decay is a theory about probabilities. But this theory is still reliable enough to use as the basis for designing nuclear reactors.
As defined – genetic change – they are evolution. There observed examples of macro evolution, but that would divert this thread into currently banned areas.
And it is also a theory. The latest results from BICEP2, measuring polarisation in the CMBR mean some changes in the theory of gravity. Those new results have no impact on the fact of gravity.
Hi grannymh,
Some of the “common misconceptions” may need further explanation in terms of Catholic teachings. I will do my best to find the answers for you.
By the way, I checked your public profile. Regarding your last quote:
“If we wish to keep peace with our neighbor, we should never remind anyone of his natural defects.” - St. Philip Neri
I am still
The point Im making is that gravity is a fact, while macro-evolution is not. That’s all. And that’s actually a fact to me. Gravity is proven. Evolution is not. One could claim that most of the evidence points in the direction of evolution. But it is still not a fact.
You need to be clearer what you are saying.
You need to add “the theory of” in front of evolution.
The X-as-fact versions are both demonstrably true. Neither of the X-as-theory versions are proven.
It has. However, diverting into a discussion of that topic would run foul of the moderators.
I agree that evolution and gravity are not in the same category of provability. The non-observance of contemporary macro evolution is not surprising, since macro evolution takes longer than recorded human history to develop. All we can observe contemporaneously is micro evolution. But macro evolution is not unique among the sciences that cannot be proven by contemporaneous experimentation and observation. Anything historical falls into the same category. How do we know that there were dinosaurs? The fossils could have been planted by God at the moment of creation, some 6000 years ago. But it seems more reasonable to suppose there actually were dinosaurs and that they died out long before man appeared on earth. If you distrust evolution because it cannot be proven with contemporaneous experiments, you will have to distrust a lot of other science as well.
The point Im making is that gravity is a fact, while macro-evolution is not. That’s all. And that’s actually a fact to me. Gravity is proven. Evolution is not. One could claim that most of the evidence points in the direction of evolution. But it is still not a fact.
None of my posts in this thread were an attempt to refute evolutionism. It was in response to the post claiming that gravity and evolution were in the same way demonstratably true. Even with the Uranium decay you speak of, I suspect (I do not know, I don’t understand uranium decay) that it has been observed in a laboratory on some level. Macro-evolution has not. Nor, due to its nature, will it probably every be. Of course that doesn’t mean that it can not happen. But it certainly does not automatically mean that it did happen either. And while there are some relatively sound arguments against evolution, it is not a fact in the same way that gravity, or even uranium decay is a fact. (Again, I don’t understand uranium decay) -disclaimer
In order for a person to say that nothing in the science of human evolution contradicts Catholic doctrines, one would have to change Divine Revelation.
